Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32375820›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2020

Prognostic impact of the "Sekhar grading system for cranial Chordomas" in patients treated with pencil beam scanning proton therapy: an institutional analysis.

Anna-Lena Hottinger, Beat Bojaxhiu, Frank Ahlhelm, Marc Walser, Barbara Bachtiary, Stefan Zepter, Tony Lomax, Alessia Pica, Damien C Weber

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anna-Lena HottingerCenter for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 PSI West, Villigen, Switzerland.
Beat BojaxhiuCenter for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 PSI West, Villigen, Switzerland.
Frank AhlhelmNeuroradiology Department, Kantonsspital Baden, Baden, Switzerland.
Marc WalserCenter for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 PSI West, Villigen, Switzerland.
Barbara BachtiaryCenter for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 PSI West, Villigen, Switzerland.
Stefan ZepterCenter for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 PSI West, Villigen, Switzerland.
Tony LomaxCenter for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 PSI West, Villigen, Switzerland.
Alessia PicaCenter for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 PSI West, Villigen, Switzerland.
Damien C WeberCenter for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 PSI West, Villigen, Switzerland. damien.weber@psi.ch.
Paul Scherrer Institute · CHETH Zurich · CHKantonsspital Baden · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSkull base chordomas are rare and heterogeneously behaving tumors. Though still classified as benign they can grow rapidly, are locally aggressive, and have the potential to metastasize. To adapt the treatment to the specific needs of patients at higher risk of recurrence, a pre-proton therapy prognostic grading system would be useful. The aim of this retrospective analysis is to assess prognostic factors and the "Sekhar Grading System for Cranial Chordomas" (SGSCC) by evaluating the larger cohort of patients treated at our institution as to determine its reproducibility and ultimately to ensure more risk adapted local treatments for these challenging tumors.

methodsWe analyzed 142 patients treated for skull base chordomas between 2004 and 2016. We focused the analysis on the 5 criteria proposed for the SGSCC (tumor size, number of anatomic regions and vessels involved, intradural invasion, as well as recurrence after prior treatment) and classified our patients according to their score (based on the above mentioned criteria) into three prognostic groups, low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk. The three groups were then analyzed in regards of local control, local recurrence-free survival and overall survival.

resultsThe median follow up was 52 months (range, 3-152). We observed 34 (24%) patients with a local recurrence, resulting in a local control of 75% at 5 years. Overall survival was 83% at 5 years, 12 (9%) patients had died due to local progression. When split into the three prognostic groups according to the SGSCC the observed local control was 90, 72 and 64% (p = 0.07) in the low-, intermediate- and high-risk group, respectively. A similar correlation was observed for local recurrence-free survival with 93, 89 and 66% (p = 0.05) and for overall survival with 89, 83 and 76% (p = 0.65) for the same prognostic groups.

conclusionsAfter splitting our patient cohort into the three SGSCC risk groups, we found a trend towards better outcome for those patients with lower as opposed to higher scores. These results suggest that this prognostic grading system published by Sekhar et al. could be integrated in the management decision-tree for patients with skull base chordoma.

Indexed as

Proton TherapyAdolescentAdultAgedChildChild, PreschoolChordomaFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansInfantMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRetrospective StudiesSkull Base NeoplasmsPencil beam scanningPrognostic grading systemProton therapySkull base chordoma

Identifiers

PMID32375820
PMCPMC7201750
OpenAlexW3023548569

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.